The case for reforming criminal sentencing laws is beginning to
resonate across the country, even with some conservatives. They’re
concerned our current methods of dealing with criminals are too
costly and too inefficient at reducing criminal behavior.

Law-and-order types have nothing to be ashamed of. They led an
important movement to crack down on crime a few decades ago.
Americans then were fed up with exploding crime rates and
soft-headed judges. Laws to make sentencing harsher and more
consistent resulted in sharply rising prison populations and, more
importantly, reduced crime rates. Victims finally gained
enforceable rights. Citizens became safer.

But over time problems have developed with our
incarceration-oriented methods of punishment. It is hideously
expensive. Arizona’s population has increased 150 percent since
1970, while our prison population rose a whopping 1,000 percent.
Spending for prisons has gone from 5 percent to 11 percent of
general fund expenditures, which is even more impressive in the
context of how much more we spend for everything else, too. Prisons
received $949 million in 2011 appropriations, while budget analysts
project $975 million will be needed for new prison construction
under existing sentencing guidelines.

Although that’s tough to deal with in today’s economic climate,
none of it would matter if it were truly necessary for public
safety. But that may simply no longer be the case.

For one thing, we don’t do a very good job of distinguishing
between bad guys who have to be locked up versus those who have
broken the law but whose behavior can be adequately monitored and
controlled without incarceration. For example, Mesa state Rep.
Cecil Ash, a leader in sentencing reform, tells of a young man who
stole a $200 bicycle. He received an eight-year minimum sentence —
and the judge had no choice because he had a prior conviction for
similar petty crime. So taxpayers spent $200,000 incarcerating this
kid who had the poor judgment to commit a $200 property crime.
Worse, he spent those eight years in an environment highly likely
to turn a foolish youngster into a career criminal. There must be a
better way.

Several states, including Texas, are showing the way to saving
money and lowering recidivism rates by rationalizing sentences. The
key strategy is to provide probation and early parole for selected
low-level offenders. This allows non-violent, non-dangerous
offenders to remain in the community and to be self-responsible
rather than wards of the state. That in turn increases the
likelihood that the offender will be able to pay restitution to
deserving victims. And, of course, the state saves money, since
incarceration is up to five times more expensive than outside
supervision.

Mississippi, not known for being soft on crime, reduced its
adult prison population by 1,233 persons last year, at a time when
most states reported increases. Along with other measures, they
reduced the minimum time before parole eligibility from 85 percent
to 25 percent of the full sentence. Remarkably, their recidivism
rate was 0.2 percent for these early release parolees, compared
with 10.4 percent nationally.

So how did Mississippi save money and reduce crime at the same
time? One answer is improved tools to determine which inmates are
good early release candidates. Modern techniques assess not only
behavior in prison, but employment record, nature of criminal
activity, psychological evaluations and other inputs.

Another factor is that “home arrest” with tamper-proof anklets
and updated tracking equipment provides virtually unlimited ability
to monitor and control parolees’ activities. Also, some states are
seeing performance improvements when they incentivize probation and
parole supervisors to reduce recidivism.

Some conservatives have concerns with the concept of mitigating
sentences, even though Gov. Rick Perry and former Education
Secretary Bill Bennett are among the advocates. But this isn’t
about feeling sorry for prisoners nor questioning the morality of
their punishment.

This is a hard-headed calculation of what policies do the best
job of curbing criminal behavior in a society where millions of
young men are raised without fathers or normal socializing
influences. Our state simply doesn’t have the money to maintain
thousands of dependents when it doesn’t serve any useful
purpose.

• East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is
a retired physician and former state senator